Robert L. Holmes
He also undertook studies in classical piano at the Watertown Conservatory of Music for ten years and won several awards while competing in New York City, Canada and Washington D. C.[1] Subsequently, Holmes earned his undergraduate degree in Philosophy cum laude from Harvard University in 1957.
Included among his publications is a collaborative work undertaken in 1968 with Lewis White Beck - a noted scholar on Kantian ethics (Philosophical Inquiry: An Introduction to Philosophy).
[33] Over the course of the past forty years, Holmes has addressed several interrelated moral dilemmas posed in the modern age including terrorism, nuclear deterrence and armed conflict in general.
In his view, violence is a form of abrogation of this maxim which is prima facia wrong and that Just War Theories in general are inadequate to the task of surmounting such a moral presumption.
[34][35][36][37] Holmes offers a systematic critical review of the two major schools of thought which claim to defend warfare in the modern world.
Even if a war is considered "just" in accordance with the standards of jus ad ballo or jus in bello, it may not be deemed morally acceptable based upon a consideration of the organized violence which it engenders in the modern world[41][42][43][37] With this in mind, Holmes outlines a four stage argument to support the view that warfare is unjustified even within the context of modern world conditions.
Specifically, he outlines a Gandhian approach to resolving conflicts, which rejects the utilization of mutual concessions in order to achieve a provisional or temporary standoff between the waring parties.
This is accomplished by examining the concept of warfare from a more global perspective, as opposed to concentrating primarily on the particular subjective perceptions of "just" or "unjust" outcomes which may prevail among the combatants.
With this in mind, he offers a critical review of the "constellation of social, political, economic, religious and ethical values and practices" which are required to wage war systematically over time.
He concludes by arguing that a prima facie presumption against warfare in general is sufficiently compelling in the modern era due to a variety of factors including: the killing of both innocent and non-innocents alike, the inevitable displacement of large populations of people, along with the inevitable harm done to both animal life and the environment in the long term.
[47] Stated more simply, "To be a pragmatic pacifist one need only hold that the large-scale, organized and systematic violence of war is impermissible in today's world.
